Theory of Cognitive Dissonance - Research Paper Example

? Theory of cognitive dissonance Lecturer Introduction There are various studies that were constituted to make sense of the theory and how it shapes the attitudes of different people. The theory had its fair share of popularity in the years that range from late 50s all through to the mid 70s whereby the popularity was threatened by the insurgence of ‘self’ theories that crowded the field around the early 80s. But due to the level of importance witnessed in cognitive dissonance, especially as the theory that has the ideas of fronting selective exposure to various forms of communication. Festinger, for example, carried out relevant synthesis on various instances of studies carried out to establish the relevance of the theory in influencing communication. (Chasek, 2010) Further understanding needs to be established on the theory to bring out the idea that this is a theory that is basically adopted form social psychology. From the title, individuals with basic knowledge on Psychology can draw out the conclusion that that cognitive stands for the mind or the process of thinking while dissonance stands for conflict or inconsistency. From this point it is safe to say that cognitive dissonance comes as a result of psychological conflict arising from upholding two or more parallel beliefs that work in an incompatible mode. This theory has been embraced by the experts in many fields by molding it to fit into their own requirements. An example is in the field of communication alongside various other disciplines. . (McLeod, 2008). This theory is quite the famous one because it manages to displace all forms of previous engagements in form of conditioning by completely viewing as rather purposeful decision makers by majorly opting to balance the beliefs. The mind should therefore be conditioned in such a way that in case one is presented with decision making situations that create dissonance, then one is supposed to apply strategies of dissonance reduction so as to basically regain relevant equilibrium mostly in situations whereby the decision making would have great effect on the self esteem of the individual involved. (Barker, 2003) The theory of dissonance applies in various situations that involve the change of attitude and its formation. The theory has the capability of manipulating individuals to embrace certain behaviors so as to influence the people to change their own attitudes. This quality makes the theory and the thoughts around it relevant for problem solving and decision making. A real life situation as an example is a situation whereby a driver holds on to the beliefs that he does not require seat belts when driving. Then the reality dawns on him when he gets the news that a friend had an accident and lost his life simply because he had no seat belt on. The dissonance of this driver may possibly be reduced by actually completely altering behavior and hence starting to apply the use of the seat belt because he now finds it necessary to avoid impending implications that may rise if he doesn’t use it. The driver can also embrace the idea that he needs to find an alternative since his hatred for the seat belts in general could still be outstanding. Then he may seek relevant information on available alternatives in the market and fall for the airbags. Therefore the impetus to actually bring dissonance down majorly relies on the amount or magnitude of the held dissonance (McLeod, 2008). The dissonance in us is mostly always important and stronger when we have a belief about something that we hold dear but we go ahead and do something completely parallel to that belief. An example is when we believe that somebody is good, the he goes on to do something that is really bad, then what we have in the mind is cognitive dissonance that results in the kind of discomfort we feel from the entire idea. Dissonance will increase perpendicularly with the level of importance that we give to a certain subject, the strength by which the two conflicting feelings or thought feel the parallel forces against each other. The other possible way that dissonance can majorly be created in our lives is when we experience an inability to explain away or to rationalize the conflict in the mind. (Chasek, 2010) The cognitive dissonance, according to psychologists is one of the most powerful sources of motivation that has the ability to influence us to change conflicting beliefs that we hold within ourselves. There are various ways in which we can get rid of these forms of conflicts such as through the individual’s change in behavior, justification of behavior by basically changing cognition that is conflicting or just by simply justifying the behaviors we have by basically adding fresh cognitions that we didn’t have before. (Robert, 1982) Cognitive dissonance is a theory that has greatly changed the way in which psychologists analyze behavior as well as decision making. The theory starts with cognition. These cognitions are simple knowledge bits that can pertain to a wide variety of thoughts that range from values, thoughts and emotions. Cognition has little or no connections with each other and hence are unrelated. However some of these cognitions are related but they don’t have to follow each other and may furthermore be direct opposites. Many people hate having cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance can also be applied in resolution of conflicts. The theory provides a way forward in elimination as well as in the perpetuation of the conflict. Cognitive dissonance can either aggravate or lessen both the small and large scale conflicts. For example the conflict that rises from the discussion that rises from abortion in America. The discussion is torn between those who stand by the thought that abortion should never be given a chance to take place in the society and those who believe that abortion should be allowed in the society according to different provisions that can make it necessary to be accepted. As soon as negative cognitions are upheld, they mostly are often reinforced almost immediately by the cognitions that are similar while on the other hand, the thoughts that seem to contradict are often ignored. The conflicting sides can always be unwilling to scrutinize new pieces of information that is presented by the opposing side’s stance so as to avoid such a situation that may bring about cognitive dissonance. The concept of cognitive dissonance explains why so many people always oppose counterarguments that revolve around beliefs that they hold so dear in life. It is therefore worth noting the situation that this theory is unpleasant so much that people who experience a conflicting thought would rather have a close minded approach than to face the actual reality in form of information of cognitive dissonance and the result of facing the repercussions (Ziva, 1980). Cognitive dissonance can work in many ways to reduce conflict. In many situations, people would often opt to avoid the cognitive dissonance but then again they feel obliged to embrace it when situations call for it. When we create cognitive dissonance, we force different people to react to different situations. By the introduction of cognitive dissonance, we encourage a change that we expect to see in the way people think or in the way they act. For example when we talk about cognitive dissonance in abortion, no matter which side we pick, we will by all means tend to try and inspire others to think and act along our own ways of thinking through inspiring attitude change. By pointing out the aspect of life lost from abortion, people may actually be coerced into rethinking their actions. By introducing new bits of information to people about one side of a heated argument, they create a new cognitive dissonance that starts to exist between the beliefs that they have been upholding and what they actually know to be true. The kind of situation like this gives people the chance to readjust what they have been practicing in the account of the new information. On the same breadth, the abortion debate can experience the same fate in terms of influencing sides; injecting new information into the debate can bring about major instances of reconciliation that can also facilitate change in thoughts and actions of the stakeholders involved in the whole process. Even though it may be practically impossible to have a unanimous agreement on issues surrounding abortion the violent conflict that causes tension between two opposing sides can be reduced majorly and finally terminated if the efforts are upheld (Festinger, 1957). Creating cognitive dissonance is mostly effective if the dialogue method is used. For example there has been a heated form of argument between pro-choice and pro-life activists in the abortion dialogue. The said dialogue mostly took place in Cambridge whereby people may have not left the venue of the dialogue having changed opinion, but they would have to leave with new found respect for the opposing side of the argument. People from either pro life or pro choice would have to change their opinion on their opponents as they would be convinced that those on the other side are not ‘bad’ people and are of the same rationality. With this kind of new found intelligence, people will tone down on their advocacy approach and hence bringing the dialogue to a constructive level than it could have been without a proper dialogue. (Cotton, 1985) Cognitive dissonance can also be created through disarming behaviors by getting to the bottom of the issue, understanding what the other side of the divide expects from you then you go ahead and do exactly the opposite. For instance, if the opposing side thinks your ideas are cruel and uncaring in the abortion debate, all you have to do is make a small gesture to prove the opposite of that stand by demonstrating how much you care for the situation advocated for by the other side. Through this, cognitive dissonance can be created. However, doing this may just not change the stand of the other or even change their attitude towards the whole issue of abortion in America, if done once, as they are most likely to give little significance to the cognitive dissonance. However, doing disarming of behaviors more than once may provide striking results as the effects may be more visible (Festinger, 1957). The debate sparked by Congressman Todd Akin’s statement on abortion and the issues revolving around rape was a good avenue to express cognitive dissonance. He talked about rape and how it is related to pregnancy. The congressman observed that if a lady is raped, she should be able to shut down the effect that could bring about unwanted pregnancy that would in the long run necessitate abortion. Many people observed his statements as inhuman and misinformed. Many people urged him to drop his bid for a senatorial seat mostly just because of the kind of language he used to address the whole issue of abortion and not necessarily for the stand he took. In this case, the congressman was not careful on the method he used to try to approach even the people on the opposite side of the divide and hence he witnessed rebellion even in instances whereby dialogue could have resolved his stand without sparking a storm around such a crucial issue (Steele, 1988). So Akin is one person who is pro life and decided to front that argument, though in way that many people didn’t agree with. Akin however hates the idea that a woman should be forced to carry the burden from a case of a ‘legitimate’ rape by keeping the baby till the full time of birth. Akin held on to a form of cognitive dissonance that some doctors believe that the woman’s body has the ability to secrete some forms of chemicals that can eliminate chances of conception after a rape case. There is no such provision in actual life but Akin holds it as a practical possibility and that makes him believe that he is quite a decent guy who has the interest of everyone at heart, even with such ridiculous thoughts. From our understanding of cognitive dissonance, we do not really have to condone the kind of absurd statements; all we have to do is merely to comprehend his point of view. (Chasek, 2010) In America, attention has been accorded to the issue that revolves around abortion. Therefore, a notion arose of ‘culture wars’ whereby so many people in America were polarized among two sides of the divide. Pro life part of the debate that was advocated for by the religious individuals while the pro choice side that was advocated for by the secular activists groups. Religiosity has the ability to mediate the attitude of many people on the issue that involves legalization of abortion. A person who adheres to a position that has amplified religious position from the up bringing of religion has a less likability to go through cognitive dissonance in such a topic as abortion as they are most likely to have a fixed position on the issue. Religiosity therefore leads to a kind of dismissive attitude towards the issue of abortion in totality. Those who strictly follow the literalism of the Bible hold on to the belief that abortion should be forbidden by law at all costs. Bible literalism has strong beliefs that the stands they take are absolutely right and hence they acquire an attitude of persistence. It is this kind of attitude that makes it hard for the pro choice and pro life sides of the abortion debate to reach a compromise. More study however shows that there has been no increase in attitude polarization over the same issues discussed in ‘culture wars’ (Vallacher, 1985) Further aspects of the abortion debate have brought about salience as witnessed in politics and discourse within the public domain and that has been going on for the twenty or so years. Debate from both sides has raised heated arguments as to whether the legislations of the state should actually leave the aspect of decision making solely in the hands of the woman as well as her doctor in regards to abortion or if the state should be the one to make a decision on the effect of a medical condition on the woman in favor of the baby. The Christian pro life activists will always argue that the embryos are also human beings who have the right to life that is sanctified and that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is illegal by whatever name it takes. They base their arguments on moral grounds that are subjective by all means but they tend to tone down on legislatives that give provision that can allow abortion in the cases of traumatic situations or if the case gets extremely dangerous. The pro choice side takes it in that women have the rights as they view ideas from a secular perspective. They favor some sort of liberal legislation in issues surrounding abortion. They advocate for the idea that it should be allowed even in cases whereby the mother’s life is not so much in danger. Like in rape or a pregnancy that arises from incest as well as other traumatic situations and that the women should have the capability to choose when to get rid of a fetus. In America, there can be no provisions for personal feelings to get in the way of legislative decisions that require firm stand on issues surrounding abortion. The discussion involves only scientific and religiously neutral views. (Carver, 1988) Science can mostly be dismissed by members of a congregation, as they are less prone to submit to cognitive dissonance in matters of scientific approach in handling issues that are presented in scientific evidence that can stand the waters to go against their biblical beliefs on abortion, they therefore lack the will to change their stand no matter how strong the evidence presented to them is. Attitude persistence is mostly exercised by such individuals when they are mostly forced to come to terms with the kinds of stand that their pro choice opponents advocated for in the first place. For a belief that is religious to be able to maintain the required credibility in front of adherents, then that belief has to be continuously reinforced by carrying out constant intervals of communication with both the parties involved either against or for the belief. It is therefore worth noting that people who come from religions that are stricter always find it extremely hard to change the positions they hold in regards to personally important issues as the impact that education has had on their education is more or less weak. With these kinds of situations, such individuals experience less cognitive dissonance which has the consequence of being less prone to change the opinion they have been holding for longest possible times. Such members of the society should be treated with kid gloves when making policies around the issues like abortion where they have high discursive tendencies to make their stand known. (Aronson, 1991) Some people in these arguments think that those who hold biblical morals do not do so with the well-being of mankind in their mind but are for the idea so that their rather fair stand can be seen in future to grant them eternal lives. More people dismiss science claiming that it has been misused by the stakeholders so as to make assertions regarding reality that they have for long periods of time withheld different opinions on from the perspective of their faith as compared to the rest of those non faithful who lack proper stand on important issues. With that in mind, the argument about abortion will seem to have the possibility of extending over long periods of time. There is protracted conflict between beliefs that are equally important to people and emotions run high when it gets to the point of deciding on vital subjects that enjoy keen public interest as in the case of policy on abortion (Festinger, 1957). Take a case whereby an individual believes that a woman has sole responsibility to decide on matters that concern her body. Then in a different turn of events, the same individual believes that God has a strict view on abortion and that those who condone it will be answerable during the judgment day. Such an individual has strong feelings for two core beliefs that have differences in the kind of effect they insert on a discussion, there may be no possible way to address such a stand to restore major balance in regards to both sides of the same coin, the only possible solution that can bring back sanity to such confusion is cognitive dissonance. Being strongly affiliated with religious understanding, a person may experience cognitive dissonance in smaller quantities as compared to the others. This is because the core values that can be seen to exhibit conflicting strengths obviously have a less evil side. Such a person, in case she is a woman, may be less ambivalent in matters that involve abortion as she will have to do away with arguments that support it without weighing the weight of the argument fronted by the other side. (Tesser, 1988) The trend seen whereby there has been dropping levels in abortion in America. Government officials, reporters as well as abortion advocates and the ones who hate it have thrown their weight to have their voices heard on the contentious issue. Some parts of the divide think that abortion has witnessed declining rates due to inadequate access by those who seek the services of abortion experts as the people tend to move away from the idea in general. The abortion facilities may have been availed in few quantities to facilitate that drop in numbers of those who seek the practice. Other reasons that may have made it possible for the drop include a better application of contraceptives especially with the aim of precaution against becoming pregnant, the empowerment of women to gain basic knowledge about what matters in life, programs of chastity, the educational efforts of those in the pro life side of the discussion. All these factors were in agreement as they were tabulated from those whose responses were sampled. (McLeod, 2008). News channel ABC conducted research on the same field to establish the extent of decline in rates of abortion reported that more than 60 % of the doctors who were still conducting abortion were a bit older than 65 years, this trend showed that the rates of abortion were expected to get way lower with passing time as fewer doctors were willing to engage in it and those who participated were mostly those who had personal feelings attached. Such reporting on television channels were initially rare as compared to years before but the saying goes that even the staff at the television channel made it possible to be viewed positively when post abortion discussion can be replaced by discussions that are pro life by all means. (Barker, 2003). There were drops in rate of abortion witnessed as public awareness was carried to enable women access the news of the trauma that follows immediately after abortion. Or is it that women who carried out abortion and suffered immensely from the aftermath finally got to the root of it all to warn their friends or relatives who would opt to go through the same road. Whatever the case, post abortion problems and the awareness are the issues responsible for the falling rates of abortion; the same explanation would really be echoed from the four corners of America (Festinger, 1957). At certain times, everyone has held ideas that contradict with each other, but the issue at hand is also scrutinized to witness level of importance. Issues of life and death are often mostly important to many people. The issue about abortion also raises equal tension among those life and death issues as the debate also has grave importance when being discussed. The debate has elicited much emotional activity from both sides of the discussion. There have been millions of people still living in denial in America as they maintain avoidance of discussion on the issue. The concept of self esteem has tied together issues that explain rates of abortion whether they have fallen or risen (Festinger, 1957). Beliefs touching on self-esteem are among the most important ideas held by all people. For many people, basic self-respect is one of the cognitive elements that is most highly resistant to change. Any idea that threatens their self-respect is likely to be rejected. Conversely, any idea that boosts their self-respect is likely to be accepted. Cognitive dissonance has a lot to do with it all. In the 70s and the 80s the clinics were embracing abortion exercise and that showed how much people took in the idea without much discouragement. However as days went by, more people came out to oppose with the strongest possible terms the same issue and hence cognitive dissonance arose especially as a strong opposing side came up with similar vibrant energy to explain their pro choice stand. Cognitive dissonance therefore critically evaluates both sides of the same coin and tends to explain the kind of rebellion or support each side faces with relevant explanations as to why the case is as it is. (Mahaffy, 1996) Summary of the theory The theory has the capability of manipulating individuals to embrace certain behaviors so as to influence the people to change their own attitudes. This quality makes the theory and the thoughts around it relevant for problem solving and decision making. A real life situation as an example is a situation whereby a driver holds on to the beliefs that he does not require seat belts when driving. Cognitive dissonance can work in many ways to reduce conflict. In many situations, people would often opt to avoid the cognitive dissonance but then again they feel obliged to embrace it when situations call for it. When we create cognitive dissonance, we force different people to react to different situations. By the introduction of cognitive dissonance, we encourage a change that we expect to see in the way people think or in the way they act. For example when we talk about cognitive dissonance in abortion, no matter which side we pick, we will by all means tend to try and inspire others to think and act along our own ways of thinking through inspiring attitude change. By pointing out the aspect of life lost from abortion, people may actually be coerced into rethinking their actions. By introducing new bits of information to people about one side of a heated argument, they create a new cognitive dissonance that starts to exist between the beliefs that they have been upholding and what they actually know to be true. The kind of situation like this gives people the chance to readjust what they have been practicing in the account of the new information. On the same breadth, the abortion debate can experience the same fate in terms of influencing sides; injecting new information into the debate can bring about major instances of reconciliation that can also facilitate change in thoughts and actions of the stakeholders involved in the whole process. Even though it may be practically impossible to have a unanimous agreement on issues surrounding abortion the violent conflict that causes tension between two opposing sides can be reduced majorly and finally terminated if the efforts are upheld. (Festinger, 1957). Cognition has little or no connections with each other and hence are unrelated. However some of these cognitions are related but they don’t have to follow each other and may furthermore be direct opposites. Many people hate having cognitive dissonance since the form of conflicts that arise from the whole idea of having parallel thoughts at the same time may be too much for some people to handle. The Psychologist needs to capture basic understanding of relevant issues involved in the theory and be able to apply the ideas in solving real life situations that cause conflicts in the minds of the patients. For the sake of understanding the discussions around the abortion debate, all the opposing sides need to have their ideas fully recognized without looking down on a stand taken by an individual or a group. Fronting your thoughts about the topic is healthy but it should never be done at the expense of those that hold a different opinion. Be a good listener as well as a convincing speaker so that at the end of the day all forms of relevant ideas are fully captured. References Aronson, E., Fried, C. & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 1636-1638. Barker, P (2003). What is cognitive dissonance? : London, Earthscan Press Carver, S, S. (1988). “ A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action,” in Berkowitz ed., Ibid., pp. 303-346; Higgins, E.T. (1989). “Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer” in Berkowitz, ed., Ibid., pp. 93-136; Chasek, P. (2010). The Abortion Debate: Yale University Press Cotton, J.L. (1985). “Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure,” in Zillman, D & Bryant, J, eds. Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, L, pp. 11-33. Festinger, L & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). “Cognitive consequences of forces compliance,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 (2):203-210. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mahaffy, A.K. (1996). “Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35 (4):392-402. McLeod, S. (2008). Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Boston, Cornell University Press. Robert A. Wicklund & Gollwitzer, P.M. (1982). Symbolic selfcompletion. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Steele, C.M. (1988). “The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self,” in Berkowitz, L ed. Advances in experimental social psychology 21. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 261-302; Tesser, A. (1988). “Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior,” in Berkowitz, ed, op. cit., pp.181-227; Vallacher, R, R. & Wegner, D.M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Ziva, K (1980). “The case for motivated reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108(3):480-498. . Read More